Nader attack: your posting

Lisa & Ian Murray seamus at
Sun Jan 23 19:12:24 PST 2000

A steady-state capitalist economy is pretty hard to imagine, and Aarons wasn't about to imagine anything beyond capitalism. So he was right from his point of view. If I remember right, he was also responding to a Malthusian questioner, who wanted no economic growth, and Aarons was simply doing the math of 0 GDP growth plus >0 pop growth = declining per capita income. That too is irrefutable if you think capitalism eternal.

Doug ======

Agreed, an SSCE is virtually out of the Q, and Aarons didn't seem like someone who had any imagination. Word to me was the question came from Canadian enviro. lawyer Steve Shrybman who is no Malthusian [even though he hangs with the IFG crowd]. I imagine that if the questions were verbal rather than written we would have had a much needed debate on this issue of national and international methods for measuring the economist's favorite metaphor. I vote for the fact they're crap...Me thinks V. Shiva came up with the only sound bite concept the whole evening which might be worth holding onto and try to define after all we've tried to learn after 1989; economic democracy. She was good on imperialism.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list